Photos • Location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is some agreement this building is inside a historic district but there is a clear consensus that it does not meet our standards of notability. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Port Townsend First Baptist Church

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Port Townsend First Baptist Church (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A thinly sourced article on a run-of-the-mill church in Washington State that fails WP:NCHURCH, WP:NORG, and WP:GNG. Hits, such as they are (e.g. [1]), are WP:ROUTINE mentions in local media. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Djflem: Thanks for finding that! Question: does NRHP officially list what properties are "contributing" to a historic district? Or is it just a reasonable inference from the location of the property? AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, i guess. I like to see coverage in wikipedia of historic buildings, but there is no substantial coverage in the article or sources which I can see about this church. Actually I see no mention of this church in the 28 page NRHP document for the historic district, here. Not every property within a historic district is notable, and here there is no description at all, no suggestion why this one might be a contributing property, if it is one. It is not covered in the many photos accompanying the NRHP document, photos here. Actually the photographed buildings all appear to have some architectural distinction, which this church does not have, per my interpretation of the photo in the article. It could be regarded as an intrusion. The article includes assertion it is one of 4 historic churches in the historic district, but that is not supported by the citation to Wayback machine copy of article wayback source here. There is assertion in the article that it was built in 1891 and majorly renovated later, but that is not supported by any citation. Per sign visible in Google streetview, the church was founded in 1890 but that does not mean the building dates from then. Per the verbal description of boundaries of the historic district in the last page of the NRHP document, and comparing that to Google maps, it does appear to be located within the district borders. Some more information, some story needs to be available before this should have a separate article IMHO. Redirecting to the historic district article is not appropriate, because there is no mention of it there and no source available to add anything there. Possibly it could be redirected to Northwest Baptist Convention, but I am not sure if it is a member of that, and there is no coverage of it or other individual churches there. There's no substantial content to save. It was created in 2009 by an editor who only started this article and has not edited since, so deleting it would not be hurtful to any current editor. -- Doncram ( talk) 13:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 14:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
From the document:"There are over 700 residences and 60 commercial structures within the Port Townsend Historic District. An exhaustive listing of individual buildings with detailed descriptions is beyond the scope of this nomination, however, a block- by-block survey has been conducted and a tremendous volume of data is on file.". Actually only about 7/8 buildings are specifically mentioned. Architectural interest is but one of many criteria used for NRHP, historical and cultural significance play big role as well. Language suggests that the entire area was included in district. Djflem ( talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is apparently an entire large area that is included in the historic district, i.e. all the buildings within the street borders described on last page are indeed included in the district. This is an old/early NRHP/NHLD listing, for which not as much detail is available as for more recent large NRHP or NHLD district listings. In a newer big listing, there would be an exhaustive, exact address by address specification of which buildings are non-contributing (e.g. think a modern convenience store or gas station which is an architectural intrusion), or are deemed "contributing" to the historic nature of the district, or even further being "very important contributing" or some such term. In this case of an old listing, I am guessing that there never was determination of which structures were contributing or not. And I would guess that if one got the block-by-block survey info, which presumably is available in some state or local files, it would kinda sorta confirm this building is of "contributing" type, whether or not that language is used. Because indeed if it was in fact built in 1891, that is old and during a short building boom before an economic crash in 1893 or so (if i recall correctly what the NRHP document was saying), and either the Baptists were there then or some other church group was there, and it would be cultural/historic whatever. It would be fine by me if there was some later assessments of significance, say from some local newspaper article(s) about Ye Olde Baptist Church. Anyhow, we do not have such newspaper articles, nor do we have the block-by-block survey info, and there is AFAICT no available sourcing useable for developing article content here, hence (with some reluctance, perhaps) delete is the right AFD outcome, IMHO. Despite fact I do like people developing articles about old churches that have survived, with or without NRHP listing info, but having some substantial info unlike here. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment reading through the comments above, and doing an extensive WP:BEFORE including my newspaper account, I can find no record that this building is part of the historic district. I cannot find enough sources to make any determination. I do not think this building passes WP:GEOFEAT and I am not sure enough exists for WP:N Lightburst ( talk) 04:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Port Townsend First Baptist Church is located at 1202 Lawrence Street 48°07′00″N 122°45′47″W / 48.116660°N 122.762952°W / 48.116660; -122.762952 and, as has been mentioned, placed well inside the district, which is described below and (from my reading) encompasses all the buildings within it.

The Port Townsend Historic District is bounded on two sides by topographic features (Port Townsend Bay, Admiralty Inlet and the bluff along Water Street) however, the extent of the district inland is less well defined. There exists a high concentration of historic structures throughout most of the area encompassed although there is no abrupt edge beyond which significant buildings are completely superseded by more recent construction. A gradual dilution exists at the periphery which necessitates a fairly arbitrary approach in establishing the limits of the district. The boundaries have been drawn to include as many of Port Townsend's historic buildings as possible without taking in large areas of unrelated modern development...Beginning at Port Townsend Bay in a northwesterly direction co-linear with Polk Street and continuing to the edge of the bluff along Water Street, then following the bluff toward the southwest to the vacated Scott Street right-of-way, along that right-of-way to its intersection with Jefferson Street, southwest along Jefferson one-half block then 90 degrees to the northwest along a line parallel to Scott Street continuing to Lawrence Street, northeast along Lawrence to Walker Street, northwest along Walker to Blaine Street, northeast along Blaine to Van Buren Street, southeast along Van Buren to Garfield Street, northeast along Garfield to Harrison Street, northwest along Harrison to Chestnut Street, north along Chestnut to F Street, east along F to Oak Street north along Oak to Taft Street, along Taft to a point mid-block between Adams and Quincy Streets, then 90 degrees to the northwest along a line parallel to Quincy and Taft Streets, returning along Quincy to Taft and continuing along Taft Street northeast to Admiralty Inlet.

--added by Djflem
Yes, Djflem and I both make the same determination based on that description plus Google maps and streetview that the building is definitely in the historic district. It is entirely proper to say the building is listed on the National Register. The standard National Register bronze or bronze-like plaque ("This building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places" or similar) could be posted on the building. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Doncram: Just to clarify: given that you and @ Djflem agree that the church is within the historic district, is your !vote still delete or has it changed? AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
My !vote is not changed. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Buildings/structures within a NRHP HD are not automatically notable because they are within the district. The historic district is notable. Individual buildings within a HD can be individually listed on the NRHP and thus be notable (these would be contributing properties also). Individual non-listed buildings within a HD can be notable if they meet GNG (these could be contributing or non-contributing). This church is not any of these. MB 06:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG and to meet WP:GEOFEAT, it should be specifically listed as a contributing property. Alternatively, a sentence or so could be 'merged' to Port Townsend Historic District, but I don't really see the sourcing to justify that. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Port_Townsend_First_Baptist_Church&oldid=976905037"